after coming to know about the same, the de facto complainant and her husband went to that site at 10:00 A.M. and that A.1 to A.6 abused both of them in filthy language and addressed her as 'lambadi bitch'=It is further contended by the petitioners' counsel that after service of injunction order on the de facto complainant by the Civil Court with regard to disputed property, this false F.I.R. was given as a counter-blast and with malafide intention. It can be also said that the de facto complainant became conscious of her rights under the Act, when the accused intended to assert his alleged rights through Civil Court. I find no reason to quash F.I.R. in this case.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU            

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7752 of 2012  

06.11.2012

Katta Gopal Rao and another

1. The State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P.,And another

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.Venkatram Reddy

Counsel  for the Respondents:  Additional Public Prosecutor

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:
1 AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1905
2 (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 789
3 2009(3) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 287
4 1993 Supplement Cases 208  
5 (1974) 4 Supreme Court Cases 471
6 (2009) 16 Supreme Court Cases 59
7 (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 427
8 (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 336
9 (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 204

ORDER:

        The petitioners 1 and 2/A.1 and A.5 are accused of offences punishable
under Sections 447, 427, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act).
It is alleged that
 the de facto complainant belongs to 'lambada' caste which is
scheduled tribe and that on 10.12.2011 morning A.1 to A.6 and some others came 
to the disputed site in S.No.292 wherein basement for house was raised and they
intended to dismantle the basement and that after coming to know about the same,
the de facto complainant and her husband went to that site at 10:00 A.M. and
that A.1 to A.6 abused both of them in filthy language and addressed her as
'lambadi bitch' and challenged her as to what they would do against them.
Placing reliance on Asmathunnisa v State of A.P.1 of two Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court, it is contended by the petitioners' counsel that
 all the
ingredients of Section 3(i)(x) of the Act are not found in F.I.R. and that
therefore F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Three Judges Bench of the Supreme
Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v State of Maharashtra2 held that
 when caste
of the accused is not mentioned in F.I.R. in order to constitute an offence
under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Act, it is no ground for quashing F.I.R.  After
all, F.I.R. is not encyclopedia of the prosecution case and it is not 'be all
and end all' of the prosecution version.
 (See also Subhash Kumar v State of
Uttarakhan3, Surjit Singh Alias Gurmit Singh vs State of Punjab4, State of U.P.
v Jashodha Nandan Gupta5, Gunnana Pentayya Alias Pentadu v State of Andhra    
Pradesh6, Alagarsamy v State7, Ranjit Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh8 and  
Jitender Kumar v State of Haryana9 of the Supreme Court).
 In that view of the
matter, F.I.R. in this case relating to Section 3(i)(x) of the Act is not liable
to be quashed for want of certain particulars in F.I.R. 
 In any event, this
F.I.R. is also for offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 504 IPC.
        It is contended by the petitioners' counsel that though the alleged
offence was on 10.12.2011, F.I.R. was given by the de facto complainant on
31.12.2011 with inordinate delay. 
 Delay in matters of this nature may not
defeat the case itself.  According to the de facto complainant, as noted in
F.I.R., the matter was put up before the elders and since the accused did not
turn up before the elders, she was giving the report on 31.12.2011.  
 It is
further contended by the petitioners' counsel that after service of injunction
order on the de facto complainant by the Civil Court with regard to disputed
property, this false F.I.R. was given as a counter-blast and with malafide
intention. 
 It can be also said that the de facto complainant became conscious
of her rights under the Act, when the accused intended to assert his alleged
rights through Civil Court.  I find no reason to quash F.I.R. in this case.
        In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
____________________________    
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J        
Dt. 6th November, 2012